Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id:	<4.3.1.2.20010503102349.0165cda8@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender:	lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date:	Thu, 03 May 2001 10:38:02 -0400
To:	Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>, egor duda <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject:	Re: When will cygwin ever be stable?
In-Reply-To:	<3AF1515B.42137DE5@etr-usa.com>
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 2 DOT 20010501102110 DOT 02e99390 AT san-francisco DOT beasys DOT com>
	<17105307514 DOT 20010501224113 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 08:38 AM 5/3/2001, Warren Young wrote:
>egor duda wrote:
> > 
> > i wholeheartedly agree that lots of cygwin users will benefit from
> > rock-stable cygwin. the main question is "what cygwin team should do
> > for this?" 
>
>To answer this it might be helpful to know where Cygwin is going.  I
>assume that the overall goal is stepwise refinement towards Linuxness or
>similar.  So, how far are we from that goal?



Impossible to say, since the stated goal is so broad.  I doubt there will
ever be a day where everything done in Linux will transparently work in 
Cygwin.  But if you want some idea of where things stand, I'd say the best 
indicator is the cygwin-apps list.  This list is for people porting apps to 
Cygwin.  Issues they encounter are the best indication of where Cygwin needs 
to go to support the packages people want to run.  I think the main point to 
focus on here is that Cygwin is still very much a work in progress.  Needed 
functionality is still missing.  Until that changes or the set of "needed
functionality" dwindles to a small enough amount that the vast majority 
don't care about it, I don't think it will be possible to address the needs
of those who want a "rock-stable cygwin" and those who need the additional 
functionality with one branch of the code.  Unfortunately, managing two 
branches isn't likely to happen without a lot more resource.  That additional
resource would need to be able to maintain, release, and provide technical
support for the alternate Cygwin.  Also, coordination with the "development"
branch is required.  Its not a trivial task but it could be done if there were
enough volunteers to undertake this task.



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -